12 so. For that reason, under the circumstances of this case, the Court found that those persons were still to be regarded as facing a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. 31. To ascertain whether a situation of extreme gravity and urgency in avoiding irreparable harm exists or persists, the Court may assess the totality of factors, including political, historical, cultural, or any other sort of circumstances affecting the beneficiary or placing him or her in a vulnerable situation at a particular moment capable of infringing his or her rights. This situation may increase or decrease in time, depending on innumerable variables; but, as has already been stated, only extreme and urgent situations will be suited to protection via provisional measures.10 32. The Court notes that a contradiction in terms may exist between what the representatives and the Commission denote a “situation of permanent risk” and the “temporary” nature of provisional measures as a mechanism of protection for specific situations of risk and vulnerability. Consequently, the information submitted is not sufficient to assess the real, present risk that each of these persons may face in the context of the aforementioned criteria. However, the Court finds that the vulnerability that the beneficiaries and their families face as victims of the Mapiripán massacre and, in particular, due to their forced displacement, has not been completely eliminated. 33. In turn, the Tribunal notes and stresses that these provisional measures have not been sufficiently or adequately implemented by the State since the time of their ordering. In some cases, the lack of communication between beneficiaries, representatives, and State authorities has brought about this situation. Furthermore, instances of internal forced displacement have affected the victims’ family members and have made it difficult to adjust compliance with provisional measures to the particular needs of each family group. However, the State has not shown that such was a sufficient reason to fail to comply with the Court’s Order and, primarily, it has neither conducted nor provided risk assessment studies on the beneficiaries despite having agreed to perform them. 34. The Tribunal has observed in this matter that from the information provided it is evident that one of the greatest obstacles to the implementation of these provisional measures is the lack of sufficient and permanent communication between the beneficiaries and the State in agreeing to the terms of implementation and knowing the risks faced by the beneficiaries. This has led to the conclusion that the provisional measures cannot be adequately implemented and therefore lack effect. The Tribunal regards the presentation of observations and information concerning compliance with provisional measures as an essential component of the same as it constitutes a duty on the part of the State, the beneficiaries (or their representatives), and the Inter-American Commission. 35. In the present matter, the information necessary to assess the request to rescind provisional measures has not been supplied. For this reason, the Tribunal will keep them active for a period of six months and will consequently require that the Commission, the representatives, and the State provide complete and detailed information containing the relevant elements of proof in order to determine the need (or not) to maintain these provisional measures in place. The Tribunal cautions that 10 Cf. Case of Liliana Ortega, supra note 10, Considering clause twenty-two; Matter of the Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”); Capital Region Penitentiary Center Yare I and Yare II (Yare Prison); Penitentiary Center of the Central-Occidental Region (Uribana Prison); and Capital Judicial Confinement Center El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II, supra note 8, Considering clause thirty; and Case of Mack Chang et al. Provisional Measures regarding Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, Considering clause twenty-one.